Christianity & European Identity

The following text is my opening statement for a debate with Jonas De Geer on Christianity and European revival held in Stockholm, Sweden, on Saturday, April 18, 2015. My subsequent statements were extemporaneous. The debate was recorded, and can be heard on YouTube here.

What is the relationship of Christianity and European identity? I do not say “Western Civilization,” because I wish to speak of the whole of Europe, East and West, and the whole of European history and prehistory, not just the civilized bits.

There are two perspectives we can take on this question. One looks back at history. The other looks forward to the future.

Looking back at history, we see that Christianity played an important role in Europe for more than 1700 years. It might have been otherwise. Many wish it were otherwise. It might be different in the future. But even if there comes a day in which Europe is no longer Christian, there will never come a day when Europe has never been Christian. In that sense, Christianity will always be part of European identity. Just as pre-Christian religions and cultures stretching all the way back to the last Ice Age will also always be part of European identity.

But although there was a time when Europe was Christian, Christianity was never European. I am not referring to the Jewish origins of Christianity, although that should never be forgotten. From the start, though, Christianity was as Hellenic as it was Jewish. Moreover, it defined itself in contradistinction to Judaism, just as Judaism has defined itself in opposition to Christianity.

What makes Christianity essentially non-European are the doctrines it shares with the ancient Greeks and Romans, and not with the Jews, namely the idea that a universal truth is the foundation of a universal community; if Christianity is true for all men, then it is a universal religion, not an ethnic religion. Because of its nature as a universal religion, Christianity is not tied to any particular race or people. Christendom is not and never has been co-extensive with Europe. European folk believed in Christianity, but Christianity was never a European folk religion. Many Europeans believe in the cause of Christianity, but Christianity has never believed in the cause of Europe. For the Christian cause is the salvation of all mankind.

Defenders of both Europe and Christianity point to the fact that, in the past, the Church supported the defense of Europe from Islam. But the Church was defending Europe only incidentally. What she was really defending was Christendom, which at the time was centered in Europe, but even then extended into Ethiopia, the Middle East, and as far away as China. And the Church has always been willing to shed European blood to defend and extend Christendom, from the Crusades to liberate the Holy Land on to centuries of global missionary work that continues to this day. Far from being an example of the harmony of Christianity and the ethnic-genetic interests of Europeans, the Crusades are an example of how the Church led Europeans to shed their blood to recoup lost Christian territories in the Middle East.

Let us now look to the future. If present trends are not reversed, European man will cease to exist. I do not fear for the artifacts of European civilization, since Bach and Rembrandt would continue to be prized by Jews and Orientals. I fear for the race that created these glories, and can create new glories. Our race is facing simple biological extinction due to below-replacement fertility, miscegenation, and the loss of our homelands to non-white invaders. If European man is to survive, we must exclude all non-whites from our homelands and adopt policies that cause our birthrates to rise, particularly the birthrates of the genetically best-endowed. In short, we need White Nationalism with pro-natal policies, preferably eugenic ones.

Is Christianity likely to help or to hinder White Nationalists in preventing the biological extinction of our race? To answer this question, we must first look at the actual behavior of the existing churches. All of the mainstream Christian denominations are opposed to White Nationalist policies. Instead, they provide intellectual and institutional support for ongoing white dispossession that is at least on a par with the support of the organized Jewish community, their senior partner in crime. Regardless of the views we may hold about “true” Christian teaching, if the white race is to be saved, we will have to fight the existing churches every step of the way.

Naturally, this battle will be aided if we have sympathizers inside the churches. All too often, White Nationalists who are also Christians spend their time battling against non-Christians in our ranks rather than against anti-whites in their churches. To prove that their White Nationalism is in good faith, they must instead take the battle to the churches. I wish them the best, but I also caution them. Political entryism within the churches will be no easy matter, since the churches were long ago subverted in just this manner, and the existing clergy are Old Masters in that particular black art. They will see you coming.

The battle within the churches will be aided if White Nationalists can find resources from the Bible and the traditions of the Church that support rather than oppose ethnonationalist politics. I have no doubt that such resources exist. Mobilizing them is an important metapolitical project, and it will be credible only if carried out by believers.

However, the battle within the Church is not likely to be successful unless our movement makes progress in the larger social realm, for the simple reason that the Church follows secular opinion rather than leads it. The church has a long history of supple accommodation to secular power, simply because its kingdom is not of this world. Its ultimate goal is the salvation of the soul. Thus, if White Nationalism achieves political power, the churches will hunt for Biblical precedents for our policies and reinterpret, downplay, or ignore contrary tendencies. The Church knows how to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Our job is to become Caesar.

Many defenders of Christianity argue that societies and individuals need religion, and they recommend Christianity simply because of its illustrious past and the fact that it is still here. Of course, this argument is somewhat premature, because the white race first has to survive before we can worry about how we might best organize a future white society.

Furthermore, in the last century, Christianity has been dramatically declining in Europe. Indeed, I have argued in New Right vs. Old Right (here and here) that for three centuries now, liberalism, not Christianity, has been the de facto civil religion of Europe. I see no reason to believe that Christianity will be more significant in the future than it is at present. It may revive; it may continue to decline; it may persist in diminished form; or it may cease to exist altogether.

Thus the mere fact that Christianity is here does not recommend it, if we are choosing a religion based merely on social utility. Indeed, if that is our primary concern, I have argued that we would be better served by trying to reform liberalism in a race-realist, non-individualist direction, since liberalism dominates everything today, even Christianity itself.

European Christianity will have a future only if European man has a future. But the Church is at best indifferent to white survival, and today it is actively working against it. Thus my recommendation to White Nationalists, Christian and non-Christian, is to focus primarily on white survival, which requires that we be more concerned with battling the churches than preserving them. The Christians among us must be White Nationalists among them. They must be our fifth column, doing whatever is possible to weaken the Church’s opposition to us. They need not fear for the Church, which will survive even if whites do not. God will take care of His Church, but whites must take care of ourselves.

18 Comments

Isn’t one of the reasons for studying history or philosophy etc. to learn from their mistakes?
If history is cyclic, then a return to beginnings with new knowledge is a viable option. We will make other mistakes, but not the ones they made. White man did not become rulers of the world by whining and feeling guilty for the good old days. They used what they learned and assimilated from other cultures to make our own better. We were just too generous with some. Too trustful, thinking they were just like us.

The problem you discuss here is a very real one. The biggest roadblock is the plain fact that a religion is made over Centuries of time, and unfortunately cannot be hatched instanter by forming a committee and inventing one.

This was tried at the Second Vatican Council; hence the ersatz flavor of the post-Conciliar Church.

This is likewise true of languages. One cannot really invent a language on the spur of the moment. There is Esperanto, but again it does not have anything like the stature of a genuine living language or even that of a dead language such as Latin.

This seems to leave European peoples in a sort of theological no-man’s land. There is much to be said for pre-Christian religions, but modern attempts to revive them are futile and counterfeit.

So with all the possibilities: Modern captive pseudo-Christian denominations, nostalgic pagan revivalism, attempts to turn race into religion, and so forth.

In the words of Gertrude Stein: There is no there there.

It will take a future generation–or a miracle to give our people a Faith that will once again move mountains.

“From the start, though, Christianity was as Hellenic as it was Jewish. Moreover, it defined itself in contradistinction to Judaism, just as Judaism has defined itself in opposition to Christianity.”

Perhaps you are referring here to ecclesiastical dogma and not to the Biblical doctrine. If you ARE referring to the latter then you might email or phone in to this guy’s show and discuss it with him (currently latest show):

“What makes Christianity essentially non-European are the doctrines it shares with the ancient Greeks and Romans, and not with the Jews, namely the idea that a universal truth is the foundation of a universal community; if Christianity is true for all men, then it is a universal religion, not an ethnic religion.”
This quote has somewhat confused me. Are you saying that the ancient Greeks and Romans were universalists? Are the Greeks and Romans not European? I understand that Christianity took over a lot of Platonic and Aristotelian ideas, because it was useful to their goals, but my understanding of universal is that it applies to all people at all times. Did the Greeks and Romans really believe and do that? I thought they allowed ethnic religions as long as it did not interfere with their government. Of course, I may be totally out to lunch.

The Greeks were universalists in the Hellenistic stage of their history. The Romans simply inherited that. It was especially the Stoics with their stress on cosmopolitanism who prepared the way for universalist Christianity. Keep in mind that both the Hellenist empire(s) and the Roman Empire were strongly multi-cultural. To keep this motley of various ethnicities together they had to develop a universalist attitude. Besides, a great part of the population consisted of slaves or ex-slaves, who were entirely deracinated from their cultural roots. Among these people the universalist religion of Christianity became instantly popular.

By the way, the statue of saint George and the dragon in Stockholm Cathedral (Storkyrkan), Saint. George is Sten Sture the Elder, and the dragon represents the Danes and Christian I, while the maiden represents Mother Svea (Sweden) and Stockholm, who is rescued by Sture.

A symbol of the Swedish victory at the battle of Brunkeberg 1471.

If you come to Stockholm/Sweden again I be happy to show you around, there are many fine museums and the like to see if you are interested in history.

By the way, the statue of saint George and the dragon in Stockholm Cathedral (Storkyrkan), Saint. George is Sten Sture the Elder, and the dragon represents the Danes and Christian I, while the maiden represents Mother Svea (Sweden) and Stockholm, who is rescued by Sture.

A symbol of the Swedish victory at the battle of Brunkeberg 1471.

If you come to Stockholm/Sweden again I be happy to show you around, there are many fine museums and the like to see if you are interested in history.

Christianity’s function in European history is roughly comparable to the praxis of Marxism/Communism with respect to the industrial working class. The latter initially identified with workers using the working class as a vehicle for it’s own separate ambition. Gradually, especially in the guise of Cultural-Marxism, over the generations it has mutated into an enemy of working people, all but abandoning them for other, more promising groups upon which to further build it’s power.

Over a longer time frame Christianity’s role in Europe is similar. Europe and Europeans are the “working class” of historical Christianity.

PS Sorry, I thought someone else wrote this article. In Greg Johnson’s case (I have no idea whether he is in any way ‘spiritual’) I believe he probably does understand these matters & I’m sure he’ll get the Evola RC Church ‘Transcendent’ reference.

I nominally have no problem with this article & in the main I agree with it. I mean no disrespect whatsoever with what follows. However, the author (possibly stationed in the UK) doesn’t understand the reality on the ground in the USA. Christianity rules, period. That is not going to change. Also, the author makes no distinction between western european & American Xpny, ie de-nationalised & deracinated, & the Eastern Orthodox Xpny. I suspect this author has no inner, direct experience or understanding of spiritual technologies. If we had a thousand Matt Heimbachs & the hardcore cases at TradYouthNet, we could go into battle tomorrow. Standing in liturgy for 3-4 hours once a week isn’t so bad after you get used to it. I was baptised into the Russian Orthodox Church this Pascha (Easter). I have been a hardcore Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Fay et al non-Xpn for a long time. It has been one of the hardest things of my life to admit I may have been wrong & eaten some humble pie (for me, the sacrament). My local Orthodox church gets more done in a week than all the atheists, skeptics, Asatruar & Odinists, neonazis etc combined have in the last 10 years. (Evola would get it, why don’t you?)
Oh yeah–& let’s relocate the TradYouth project from TN to the Pacific NorthWest.
Time to get this show on the road!

I would skip the whole infiltrate and subvert the churches strategy. Churches will line up behind the group that holds political power. Whites fighting the lesbians in the church offices is a big waste of time. This is basic church history in a nutshell. Even the early Christian martyrs wanted to line up behind the Romans except that the Romans required idolatry or what was perceived as idolatry. I remember reading early letters of Christians, some written by soldiers, who assured the authorities that they would be most pliable if only they were allowed to forego eating foods sacrificed to idols. I think with the bar this low, we can manage to accommodate them.

Any solution except the obvious one… but at least you mention the fact that Christianity is not European. It is not our religion, it is not a REAL religion, and it never was, or shall be. Odinism is our native religion. .https://odinia.org/what-is-odinism/Join us.